Olympiad Goals

[andyburnett]

I am quietly confident that if you were to analyse the Baku results of all teams, those who have played frequently/recently will have done better rating-wise in Baku than those who haven't been playing regularly

I wouldn't expect anyone to play as many games as, say, myself (I am fortunate in that I have great freedom with my work, although this hasn't translated into good results!) but those who want to make the Olympiad teams can and should show that they are committed to playing chess.

Again, I want to state that none of the following is intended to reflect on our recent Baku performances - we did well in Baku, but I believe we can, and will have to, up our game for the future.

OK, let's use the extreme example of our top 5 rated players on the current published list:

Player Games played 2015/16:
GM Jonathan Rowson 2
GM Paul Motwani 0
IM Andrew Greet 53
GM John Shaw 11
Gm Colin McNab 20

Average FIDE rating 2485 and seeded about 55th in the Open section.

Indeed, if we removed games played outwith my suggested Jan 1st to June 30th period, only Andrew would meet the criteria. But if these players all said they were available for the Olympiad, can you expect the selectors to say no to any of them based on number of games played recently?

That's not an easy shout for selectors at all. Sorry Jonathan, we know you are our highest-ever rated player but we don't know if 2 games, or 6 games, or 12 is enough. Much easier for prospective players to know: minimum games needed for selection: 15 (or whatever)

And could we expect these players to finish ahead of their seeding of 55th anyway (one possible goal we might have in mind for team Scotland)? That would be a tough task, given that it might take a few rounds to hit the level they are used to playing at. Chess at this level is very tough!!

Pre-Olympiad training games and seminars could help to address this; playing more regularly almost definitely would I believe.

If we chose instead players who had met the criteria, I guesstimate we would be seeded about 80th. Players of FM/IM strength who have been competing regularly could well be expected to finish ahead of 80th spot, particularly if we added in the pre-event training matches.

This of course is open to debate, but that's why I'm on the forum asking for comments and sharing ideas!

Does the fact we enter a team at 55th seeding or 80th seeding matter? Medal contention, top 10 or 20 spot are not on the horizon - so what are we looking for? Doing better than expected is an easily-quantifiable goal which many other teams set their sights on.

[Alan Tate]

And yet here you are posting something that contributes absolutely nothing.

[Phil Thomas]

Gee...does the noticeboard ever actually achieve anything positive?
It's rare I look these days (very deliberately), but whenever I do it always seems to be the same negative ("If only I was emperor, I'd show 'em") type posts kicking off a subsequent melee of rebukes and retorts. Seriously, folks, what's the point exactly?!

I assume it is restricted to members at least (....is it?!...) but either way for heavens sake review whether this is adding any value. As I've said in a few posts with more subtle language: we are where we are ; if you don't like it then look in the mirror and offer some concrete assistance.

Our players, (juniors, Olympiad, seniors or other) deserve more support than I typically see on here. Those making decisions are doing a decent job - not perfect, because none of us are (I've made more than my share of gaffs) but for heavens sake...

I do wonder, would we lose anything by just closing this bloody thing.

Value of notice board Peter? - all depends upon your individual point of view.


To some it demonstrates that the writing is on the wall.
To others it is merely grafitti.

[Alan Tate]

The question of adding a certain number of games to selection criteria is a tricky one. I believe there should be a number, but the goal is to get players into shape, not sideline them. Adam says that games against lower rated players are pointless but I think all practice is good practice.

Andy H's post about needing more round robins is a good one and I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

[WBuchanan]

Andy B: "I believe there should be a number, but the goal is to get players into shape, not sideline them"

It would be better if this number were not fixed, as this could lead to dropping a player who should be picked on strength even after taking account of inactivity. Rather, a big gap down to the next candidate should count more than a small gap!? An adjustment for inactivity could be made on agreed basis so the gap to the next player can be assessed.

Just for example, I think I remember Douglas Bryson saying that a returning inactive player loses about ten rating points on average for each inactive year. This could be adjusted to take account of the number of games played, and form the basis of a tweak to the ratings.

[Ianbrownlee]

correct me if I'm wrong but in every sport there are "meets" or gatherings where being picked for international duty is the main focus, e.g swimming. I also believe we have a relatively small pool available primarily due to lack of finances therefore we need to get some sort of financial package in place. I also believe the main reason GB did so well in the recent Olympics was directly due to the massive funding injected by the lottery. Prior to this injection sport in the UK suffered just as much as our chess. Look at the example of Australia as well when they put funding in, they became world beaters in four years, particularly in (again) swimming.

The three pillars we need to use are organisation, money and support. CS management committee are all working together to get this moving but we can never get enough support so all volunteers welcome. As always with any matter regarding chess my door is always open. BTW I think our team did very well at the Olympiad and the backroom staff such as the Andy B did their bit. Ok there were disappointments at times but so what, we didn't do too badly did we?

Personally as already indicated we need to address our goals for future participation and categorise them. We also need to ensure our players are given the best possible support before, during and after the event. This responsibility falls to the International Director and he needs and deserves all our support

[Andy Howie]

I'm not sure why the previous thread is locked. I will unlock and merge this in

[Matthew Turner]

It seems to me that selection criteria such as a certain numbers of games in the previous period of time are not really necessary.

I don't really see that bonus related pay (in the context) is really going to work.

Care to expand?

You have a view about how active a player should be in the lead up to an Olympiad and how important that is. Andy B has a slightly different view, I have a slightly different view again, Adam Bremner has a different perspective. Why try to make us all think alike? Get a selection panel together and allow then to use their judgment. Candidates should know that if they are not very active that this may count against them, but surely this is self evident?

I have no idea how performance related pay would work, but I just cannot see it being an incentive. With the sort of finances we are talking about at present I would have thought most players would see any scheme as offensive.
If you want some incentive scheme them I think it would be a great idea to offer a payment to the next Scottish born GM. You can probably raise some money from members and it has commercial possibilities because it would probably run for some time and tap into publicity at lots of different events.

[robin moore]

Alan,

On this performance related pay idea of yours. ChessScotland members already pay for adult Olympiad travel costs. The organisers of the event provide full board accommodation. Are you suggesting that ChessScotland members should also now pay each squad participant per result?

[WBuchanan]

Yes, and members and players also indirectly fund top players in steeper entry fees for tournament prizes that are well out of their reach.

It's always interesting to read ideas people have for giving away other peoples' money.

Time to consult the members shurely ....before moving towards 'goals' :|